Imagine you’ve been out of high school for 10 or 15 years. You spend your days working with young children, helping them learn their letters and numbers. Most days, you don’t even see a textbook. But someday soon—maybe even this year—your school district tells you that you have to pass a test of math and language arts skills in order to keep your job as a Title I paraprofessional.

That scenario should sound at least a little familiar to thousands of paraprofessionals across the country. It’s an oversimplified version of a new testing requirement outlined in the No Child Left Behind Act (which includes Title I), but the characterization is accurate enough. Initial reactions to this new hurdle that might keep people from continuing in a job they enjoy and do well were understandably negative—fear, anger, confusion, disgust. Local unions that represent paraprofessionals—as well as their state and national affiliates—are trying to figure out not only how to deal with the new job standards for paraprofessionals that are part of the federal Title I law but also with the fear and anger classroom paras are feeling.

LaRae Coniglione, a paraprofessional and AFT member in Pasco County, Fla., remembers well the reactions some of her veteran colleagues have had to the new law. “I saw so many people stressed and panicked at having to take this test, especially the older ones,” says Coniglione, a building representative for the United School Employees of Pasco (USEP). “They’ve been doing the same thing for 10, 15 or 20 years, and then someone tells them they have to prove that they know all this?”

By now, most paraprofessionals should be familiar with the new job requirements they have to meet by January 2006. (New hires have to meet the requirements now.) Passing a test of their knowledge of and ability to instruct students in reading, writing and math is just one of three options the law sets forth. The others are to earn an associate’s degree or two years of college credit. Realistically, given the time and money constraints of returning to school while continuing to work, the assessment option will probably be the one most paraprofessionals will have to follow.

Coniglione herself received her associate’s degree last year, so she has the luxury of helping her colleagues deal with the new requirements without having to pass the test. But she nonetheless was part of an initial group of USEP members who completed a test-prep course and then took the Educational Testing Service’s ParaPro exam.

USEP president Lynne Webb says her union has managed, with a lot of outreach to members and some hard bargaining with the school board, to turn the fear and anger about the new requirements into a comprehensive plan to help all employees in the district get the help they need. For those like Coniglione who want to pursue the college route, the district will pay for tuition and books at a local community college. For the rest, the district agreed to provide five days of paid training for all paraprofessionals, with a focus on instructional techniques and content areas. The district also will pay the test fee once and then offer remediation for anyone who doesn’t pass. All paras will get the training, but only those working in Title I will be required to take the test. But, those who pass the test get an automatic $1 per hour salary increase.

A range of strategies

The elements in place in Pasco County—including tuition reimbursement, subsidized test-preparation courses and test fees paid for by the district—are among those that AFT locals in other parts of the country also are using in response to the new Title I regulations. In Chicago, paraprofessional leader Maureen Callaghan estimates that about 4,000 of the Chicago Teachers Union’s 7,000 paraprofessionals still have to meet the law’s new requirements. The CTU has been offering three-week courses, paid for by the union, to prepare its members for the Work Keys test. (Work Keys, developed by the ACT, and the ParaPro assessment are the two most popular prepackaged tests that states and districts have been using.)

“Getting past the fear [of the test] was a big issue,” Callaghan says. “These classes are alleviating a lot of that fear. It’s good that we’re able to do this for them.” The paraprofessionals pay only a $25 materials fee for the courses, which are offered in locations throughout the city.

At the state level, the Illinois Federation of Teachers has been working with a number of community colleges to put together a test-prep course for both of the major exams. The plan, says IFT educational issues director Lanita Koster, is to start offering classes this fall in the evenings and on weekends, and eventually online. In addition, the federation has worked out an arrangement with Prairie State College so that paraprofessionals can earn college credit for all of the union’s professional development courses.

In Denver, the new paraprofessional requirements led to a unique partnership between the Denver Federation for Paraprofessionals and the Denver Federation of Teachers. As leaders from both AFT affiliates were discussing how to deal with the new testing requirements, they came up with the idea of having the teachers put together tutoring materials and also offering classes in math and English for the paras. Paraprofessional president Bernie Jiron says she expected about 50 people to be interested, but more than 200 signed up. The training was free to members (even those who signed up at the first class), and the union attracted more than 50 new members as a result.

“I wanted to get something out because I knew the new requirement was out there,” she says. “The paras were so excited and thrilled that this was a benefit of being a member.” Teacher president Dave Sanger says his members were happy to provide the training and were very gratified by the enthusiastic response. The two unions plan to continue with more test-prep sessions in the fall.

While the law affects thousands of paraprofessionals in large urban districts, smaller AFT affiliates also are figuring out how to help their members. The Milford (Conn.) Federation of Paraprofessionals, for example, surveyed its members to see where they stood in relation to the new requirements. It turns out that about two-thirds of the 162 members already have enough college credits, says local president Nancy Katrick. She also has given members a sample copy of the ParaPro test and told them to get familiar with the topics and see where they need help. Starting in the fall, a diagnostic test will be offered and classes will be tailored to boost members’ skills in areas of concern. With contract negotiations starting soon, Katrick hopes to get more money for her members in return for meeting tougher requirements.

One important role that AFT affiliates have played with No Child Left Behind is to correct some misinformation that principals and district-level administrators had been spreading about the law’s requirements and timelines for paraprofessionals. Once the basics of the law are clear, new opportunities have emerged for unions and administrators to work together. “We don’t always have great cooperation on issues,” says Linda Bridges, president of Corpus Christi AFT in Texas, “but administrators have been very cooperative on this. Their attitude has been that they don’t want to lose any paras because of this law.” The union’s approach, she says, has been to build a set of safety nets for members. “Our theory is that no para should be left behind because of this law,” Bridges says.